So Stan, does this fueller get to see the recommended fuel on the flight plan? Does he know if there are strong head/tailwinds involved with the journey? Does he know which alternates will be used for each flight? I fail to see how he can form a sensible argument without these details. I guess the fuel used by this particular carrier was enough to get the aircraft to their destination, otherwise we'd be hearing about it!!!!!!

Dear God, what on earth does a bowser driver know about steam navigation far less intricate fuel planning?

He knows how much other people put on for the same sectors.

You may assume that as a 'mere' refueller he just doesn't get the big picture?

I'm not a refueller and it concerns me too.Push the limits on everything and sooner or later it'll bite back!

How long before the increasing fuel price ends up costing more than we bargained for?

PS Just spotted this........I rest my case. :ugh:

crewcostundercontrol
Probationary PPRuNer


Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1 My company has just given us the OPTION to leave the landing lights off until the final approach, they poke out into the airflow on the Airbus and I guess there will be a small saving to made! I prefer to keepem on to let other 250kt 60Ton bits of metal wizzzing around me know Im there.....

Could not agree more stan. Forgot to mention the track miles fuel reduction of 4kg per mile SIDSTAR less than plog. Combine that with the no dest alt and you end up with a very legal 1500KG in the tanks at landing. If all goes as planned........the future is very Orange!!!!!

Sounds about right.....;) I'm too yellow for that malarky.

So who is saying that carrying minimum fuel is a safety issue?

Some of you seem to assume that only LOCO's carry the minimum fuel required on a sector. Having worked for a major/legacy carrier myself, I assure you we do exactly the same, I have even heard the odd ground engineer say to me "XYZ wouldn't go with that problem" or "is that all you want?" and I'm talking with regard to a couple of companies mentioned here.

I agree that a re fueller may think, blimey they arn't taking much, the others took far more, but did he know of pax loads, tankering, deficiencies, weather en route etc etc?
I think....no he didn't.

For the history lesson:

1st world is the developed world, i.e. the industrialized countries, or also called the OECD countries (that's Northern America, Westeurope and Australia/NZ).

2nd world was the communist block - doesn't exist anymore

3th world are the developing countries.

These blocks have changed somewhat since then but that's where it comes from.

Concerning the safety issues I can guarantee that Asian Locos (except a few run by 1st world management) don't come close to any Western Loco. And you mention India? Well, I'm speechless.

Keep discovering...

Well this is getting really silly now.

Stan Woolley does not know what he is talking about.

Shame shame to drag our fuel providers through the dirt like this !

By the way : are you (Stan) aware what fuel required means anyway ?

I stand by my original post regarding 1st, 2nd and 3rd World classifications. They may well have been modified somewhat since the original though.;)

BR.

U2

I do know what I'm talking about regarding these fuel figures, I have a lot of relevant experience on the same routes,types and even airline.

I guess I'm old fashioned not being comfy with plog fuel every sector?

Well, Stan

your posts are either removed or edited and edited again,

so,

for the viewers at home it is hard to follow,

but anyway,

you did avoid a question

nice history lesson...:rolleyes:




1st World are developed, technologically advanced democratic countries.

"the western world"




2nd World countries are/were communist-socialist stated with semi-developed/developed economies.


3rd World countries were developing nations whose infrastructure was not advanced enough to be considered developed, nor were they aligned with either of the First and Second World powers...

Recent incidents involving Ryan Air makes me think Akali Dal was onto something until the cube started on his " cheapo ", 4th estate rant and drivel.

Bad Robot said

Bad Robot, I do believe your "history lesson" is in fact flawed. I'm being pedantic here but what about neutral countries????

PS to be even more pedantic, it's a socio-economic lesson, not a history lesson:E.

And by the way, I'm correcting you.

CP.

Unfortunately, Bad Robot, the concensus of opinion here appears to be that you are wrong. The concensus is correct. The three worlds is/was a socio- economic convention and, as described by several others, referred to 1. western and industrial countries 2. communist bloc countries and 3. less developed/ under developed/ developing countries. The terms never had anything to do with alignment during WW2.

Great to see how Alki Dali's thread has been hijacked and taken over by the PC brigade with a discussion of definitions of 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries. I think maybe now he can see how seriously we take his original, puerile post.
Fishing expeditions by 3rd rate hacks deserve what they get.....ignored.

I fly for U2, and I feel no pressure when I decide the fuel uplift!

If I need more I take it if I don't, I am not a tanker Am I ?

Speevy

After all it is an airline, not a fuel shipping company...:)

My Caveat was " In a Nut Shell" ie not getting into too great a detail. I still stand by the WW2 allegiances.;)
And the partiton of Europe there after.

There has obviously been a great deal of "Modifications" since, hence I started the paragraph with, "In a Nut Shell"

You 2 must be a real delight to fly with.............:rolleyes:

BR.